Comments by JohnTieber

At June 11, 2015 at 7:51 a.m., "OK, so what are you guys waiting for? Take it to the highest court in the land…" is idiocy.

Setting aside the baseless conjecture that the writer's "you guys" (whoever that might be) are simply "waiting" — perhaps due to ignorance that one can legally challenge a law prior to its passage — one doesn't begin by "taking" something to "the highest court in the land". The Supreme Court chooses to hear cases *after* they've moved from lower courts.

Regarding, at June 11, 2015 at 7:36 a.m.:"JT …the Google King ….of the Indy…"

Baseless conjecture childishly directed at participants for "googling" is a recent tactic attempted by those whose purpose is to derail productive discussion, or who simply are either intellectually or emotionally incapable of such discussion themselves (note 2nd step from the bottom of the infographic here [ https://paulwilkinson.files.wordpress... ] ), perhaps due to an inability to control cognitive dissonance [ http://www.noozhawk.com/article/john_... ].

Since I almost never make a substantive assertion in these discussions without backing it up via at least one citation that I provide as a link, I'll explain why that baseless conjecture, like almost all baseless conjecture, is false.

Not a single one of hundreds of links I've posted in dozens of discussions here was obtained by using a search engine during the discussion (and anyone informed about Google's algorithms understands that it's increasingly impractical to access information from *independent media* by using google or any search engine that uses the google engine).

Because independent media is so much more fragmented than western corporate media, RSS feeds [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS ], in my opinion, are essential for those who have moved beyond the lies and propaganda of NYT-CNN-AP-WaPo-ABC-CBS-MSNBC-Fox-HuffPo-Reuters-BBC-NPR-PBS…, but who want to be well-informed.

It's impractical to follow more than a dozen or two independent news sites by "checking back," and much time and effort is needlessly expended attempting to access in this way a sufficient amount of independent media to be well-informed.

I subscribe to the RSS feeds of about 375 sites, the largest portion of which are independent media sites, in order to receive all new posts daily (about 6000 posts per month) from all 375 sites via *one click*.

Of those 6000 or so posts on issues that interest me I read or skim about 2000 per month and date and archive — for possible future use — the best of the posts that I read or skim; regarding the legal issues related to SB 277, several dozen posts have come through my RSS feeds just in the past three months.

And so, as some but clearly not all of us do, I enter only discussions here that I am *already informed on and interested in*, and draw on the knowledge and citations I already have on hand and easily accessible to support the assertions I make, rather than, as those who complain about "googling" (incidentally, there are better search engines that protect one's privacy) appear to be attempting to suggest, for no useful purpose: going online to find something that supports a point of view prior to posting that view.

I'm confident that participants who are here for productive discussion can appreciate that distinction.

Just as possession of medical credentials, though required to *practice* medicine, is not required to read and understand the medical issues, one needn't be a licensed attorney to comprehend that it's asinine to simplify the myriad legal issues regarding SB 277 to the incessantly repeated "any argument against vaccination is moot unless you can get the SCOTUS to overturn previously settled law in your favor."

At June 10, 2015 at 9:14 a.m.:"Lest anyone mistake some of JT's citations as peer reviewed scientific facts…"

I'm confident that participants here with even a rudimentary understanding of online media can easily grasp how silly are these attack-the-source-site or attack-the-author type of ad hominems:

1) Hundreds of credible independent media sites aggregate to some degree; many credible and popular sites are 100% aggregrators. Posts are often reposted on numerous sites; from my own 375+ active RSS feeds, I often see the same post come through on four or five sites within a day or two. So attempting to denigrate an article because of the particular site it appears on is not only foolish, but *completely irrelevant to the substance of the article.*

2) Many sites use *guest authors* who have no connection to the site.

Even setting the points above aside — and assuming at least some of those using these tiresome tactics are here to contribute to a positive discussion rather than simply to derail discussions that cause them to experience debilitating levels of cognitive dissonance [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv... ] — attacking either *the author* or the website a post happens to appear on serves no useful purpose, and amuses only the perpetrator and similarly ignorant among sincere discussion participants.

Those who unwittingly use such weak discussion tactics might benefit from 15 seconds at this infographic:

'Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue” … “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”'http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/0...

At June 10, 2015 at 7:47 a.m.:"Her essay here flagrantly ignores the link that communicable diseases like measles are low because vaccination rates have remained high."

Yet another feeble attempt to propagate disinformation.

The reality is the opposite: vaccination with fraudulent vaccines (all currently in production) not only increases incidences of diseases ostensibly targeted, but also spreads far more virulent forms; just two examples: measles and pertussis (whooping cough).

Perhaps the writer of the comment excerpted at top finds reading challenging, as the main post includes:

"...Out of 8,200 cases of pediatric pertussis reported in 2014, 90 percent of the children had been vaccinated. This should call into question the efficacy of vaccinations…"

"A remarkable study reveals that a vaccinated individual not only can become infected with measles, but can spread it to others who are also vaccinated against it - doubly disproving that two doses of MMR vaccine is "99% effective," as widely claimed…"

Those newly interested in these issues who do not want to remain *willfully* ignorant might want to access some of the hundreds of sources of actual information linked from the comment at June 9, 2015 at 4:20 p.m.

Regarding the feeble attempts by both writers above to propagate gross fabrications regarding both the California and US constitutions, I suggest 2-3 minutes at:

"The global standard is that prior, free and informed consent must apply to all medical interventions, including preventive treatments like vaccination. This standard has been endorsed by members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), including the United States, and is the hallmark of a rational approach to all medical interventions in civil society. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article VI, § 1...

"California’s Constitution guarantees the right to public education. Cal. Const. Art. 9 § 5. The Supreme Court of California has long unequivocally affirmed this right, stating: “We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.” Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971). We believe that vaccine compulsion will not withstand a strict scrutiny analysis to qualify as a sufficiently compelling interest to take the extreme and unconstitutional step of excluding children from their right to education in California. The legal right to a free and appropriate public education is also contained in the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Exclusion of children from school would, under SB 277, violate IDEA...

"…In the case of children, the courts have consistently held that parents who have the capacity to act in their child’s best interests have the right to make appropriate health care decisions for them. A child is not a “mere creature of the State.” Parham v. J.R., 422 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)…

The typically mindless parroting of corporate quack science for profit and sloganeering from the easily bamboozled at June 9, 2015 at 9:37 p.m. is at least a tiny step in the right direction from the childish name-calling at June 9, 2015 at 5:58 p.m.

The willfully ignorant have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by U.S. corporate media, at least 90% of which is now controlled by six transnational corporations. All six of these media conglomerates are heavily dependent on the *$33 billion* annual U.S. marketing budget of the transnational pharmaceutical corporations, up to 80% of which, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, are criminal entities, most for fabricating efficacy studies of products known to be fraudulent and suppressing information about the dangers of their products.

Even without the helpful introduction, "Wow. Just wow..." @ June 9, 2015 at 3:11 p.m. above, those who've not so easily abandoned responsibility for their children’s health and well-being to corrupt local government agencies easily recognize…

"By and large vaccines have brought an enormous increase in health."

…as nothing but ignorant parroting of corporate sloganeering and nonsense.

The reality is the opposite.

No reputable studies show that vaccines have had any positive effect; mountains of evidence exist that they cause permanent disability and death, while at the same time not only spreading the conditions they ostensibly are targeting, but even, particularly the pertussis vaccines, creating and spreading much more virulent versions.

Vaccines aggressively promoted by ignorant or corrupt local MDs for these six conditions are all fraudulent:

Vaccines for the conditions above confer little or no real world immunity, and thus mental and physical disabilities and death are the primary, not the secondary, effects of their use.

Click any condition here [ http://www.noozhawk.com/article/lette... ] to access information based on real science rather than on the vaccine quackery pseudoscience of the drug companies and the allopathic institutions heavily dependent on drug industry money and largesse.